McCain Gets Skewered by Wall Street Journal Editorial Board

[Pro Deus Et Patria]

Wall Street Journal editorial board skewers McCain
CNN

(CNN) — John McCain's recent comments on the economy aren't just coming under fire from Barack Obama's campaign: arguably the country's most conservative editorial board said Friday the Arizona senator's recent "populist rifting" was downright "un-presidential."

A Friday Wall Street Journal editorial sharply criticized McCain for his recent condemnation of Christopher Cox, the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Committee. The Republican presidential nominee told an Iowa crowd Thursday Cox had "betrayed the public trust" and should be fired.

"Mismanagement and greed became the operating standard while regulators were asleep at the switch. The primary regulator of Wall Street, the Securities and Exchange Commission kept in place trading rules that let speculators and hedge funds turn our markets into a casino," McCain said.

In the bruising editorial, the Journal said those comments an "assault on Mr. Cox is both false and deeply unfair."

"It's also un-Presidential," the Journal said.

Specifically the editorial says many of McCain's allegations against the SEC were misleading — particularly his claim the SEC allowed "naked short selling" and eliminated the "uptick rule that has protected investors for 70 years.

According to the editorial, the SEC never condoned the practice of "naked" shorting, and has sought to eliminate the practice during Cox's tenure. The Journal also supports the SEC's decision to eliminate the uptick rule, calling it a "Depression-era chestnut" that "protected no one."

"In a crisis, voters want steady, calm leadership, not easy, misleading answers that will do nothing to help. Mr. McCain is sounding like a candidate searching for a political foil rather than a genuine solution," the editorial also said. "He'll never beat Mr. Obama by running as an angry populist like Al Gore, circa 2000."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...kewers-mccain/




Why has a pattern emerged wherein every major statement that John McCain makes is either a lie or an egregious distortion? He can't seem to get anything right anymore.

[formerroadie]

Ah, another set of Conservatives proving this guy is bunk:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...kewers-mccain/

[formerroadie]

HA you beat me to it. apparently they joined the threads

[raytri]

It's interesting. True, on one level they're saying he's wrong and clueless, which is bad no matter what.

But on another level what they're saying is that McCain is no conservative -- which was the criticism leveled against him in the primaries, and why the base wasn't enthused about him.

Which raises the central conundrum of McCain's campaign. Being criticized by the WSJ should let him burnish his "centrist" credentials, potentially appealing to some Democrats and independents. Which is good, because he can't win without them, and his devout courting of the conservative/Bush orthodoxy has cost him heavily there, IMO.

But it will also erode his support with the base, Sarah Palin notwithstanding. And he can't win without them, either.

Plus a lot of people won't see it as a liberal/conservative thing, but simply as "McCain is out of touch and grasping."

He's been trying to please everyone while using Bush's "proven" campaign techniques on Obama -- all of which has contributed to the unmaking of the appeal that got him the nomination to begin with.

He could still turn it around, of course. But his choices are few, and his own actions have made things much worse.

[Pro Deus Et Patria]

Originally Posted by raytri

Which raises the central conundrum of McCain's campaign. Being criticized by the WSJ should let him burnish his "centrist" credentials, potentially appealing to some Democrats and independents. Which is good, because he can't win without them, and his devout courting of the conservative/Bush orthodoxy has cost him heavily there, IMO.

But it will also erode his support with the base, Sarah Palin notwithstanding. And he can't win without them, either.

Plus a lot of people won't see it as a liberal/conservative thing, but simply as "McCain is out of touch and grasping."

I don't see most people associating being blasted by the WSJ as a feather in one's cap. Besides, it be different if it was a war of opinion; instead, the WSJ has pointed out how McCain has bent the facts on this one.

Shocking that he would do such a thing, isn't it?

[raytri]

Originally Posted by Pro Deus Et Patria

I don't see most people associating being blasted by the WSJ as a feather in one's cap.

Probably true. Anyone who knows how conservative the WSJ editorial board is might note the implication, but that's probably a small percentage of voters.

Besides, it be different if it was a war of opinion; instead, the WSJ has pointed out how McCain has bent the facts on this one.

Well, it's both. They blast him for saying the SEC didn't fight naked shortselling, when it did (sort of). But they also blast him for supporting the uptick rule, and they do so mostly because they think the uptick rule should have been eliminated.

[Greco]

The Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Fox News. They are a very conservative publication, almost always supporting every Republican inititive. In today's edition they published a scathing editorial about John McCain. CNN's anchor, Jack Cafferty, commented on the editorial and said, "What does that say about a candidate when the Wall Street Journal shows you're out of touch and an incompetent buffoon?"

WSJ didn't just form an opinion of the blue, they cited example after example of McCain's own recent statements about the economy and all the highly publicized financial meltdowns to support their editorial. McCain, himself, has previously publically stated he knows very little about economics. The WSJ illustrated that many of McCain's claims, in his own words, are not only false, they prove how little he really does know about the economy. They ended their editorial with this paragraph... "In a crisis, voters want steady, calm leadership, not easy, misleading answers that will do nothing to help. Mr. McCain is sounding like a candidate searching for a political foil rather than a genuine solution. He'll never beat Mr. Obama by running as an angry populist like Al Gore, circa 2000."

An out of touch, incompetent buffoon? Tell me again how John McCain isn't just like George W. Bush.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178318884054675.html